Perhaps one of my biggest pet peeves is hasty generalizations.10 "Now will I arise," says the LORD. "Now will I be exalted; now will I be lifted up.

11 You conceive chaff, you give birth to straw; your breath is a fire that consumes you.

12 The peoples will be burned as if to lime; like cut thornbushes they will be set ablaze."

13 You who are far away, hear what I have done; you who are near, acknowledge my power!

14 The sinners in Zion are terrified; trembling grips the godless: "Who of us can dwell with the consuming fire? Who of us can dwell with everlasting burning?"

It is not endless burnings, how long does chaff and straw burn for? It burns for as long as there remains chaff and straw. Notice that a rebellious nation continues to give birth to straw and conceives chaff. Until this rebellious nation stops feeding the fire, they will by their own continual action, burn. Who can dwell with consuming fire? Who of us can dwell in everlasting burning? None. So they must make a choice, step out of the fire, stop feeding the fire, and do what is right. When they do what is right, they will recognize what arrogant people they once were, and they will recognize the obscure, strange, incomprehensible speech they once spoke believing it made sense at the time, but no longer. Just like everyone who comes from a doctrine of fear into the knowledge of the truth in love, they will be like night and day. The old has passed away and everything is made new.

15 He who walks righteously and speaks what is right, who rejects gain from extortion and keeps his hand from accepting bribes, who stops his ears against plots of murder and shuts his eyes against contemplating evil-

16 this is the man who will dwell on the heights, whose refuge will be the mountain fortress. His bread will be supplied, and water will not fail him.

17 Your eyes will see the king in his beauty and view a land that stretches afar.

18 In your thoughts you will ponder the former terror: "Where is that chief officer? Where is the one who took the revenue? Where is the officer in charge of the towers?"

19 You will see those arrogant people no more, those people of an obscure speech, with their strange, incomprehensible tongue.

20 Look upon Zion, the city of our festivals; your eyes will see Jerusalem, a peaceful abode, a tent that will not be moved; its stakes will never be pulled up, nor any of its ropes broken.

21 There the LORD will be our Mighty One. It will be like a place of broad rivers and streams. No galley with oars will ride them, no mighty ship will sail them.

22 For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; it is he who will save us.

23 Your rigging hangs loose: The mast is not held secure, the sail is not spread. Then an abundance of spoils will be divided and even the lame will carry off plunder.

24 No one living in Zion will say, "I am ill"; and the sins of those who dwell there will be forgiven.

If people stopped reading little by little and bit by bit, being snared up.

No such thing as stupid questions. Your question was legit, I find the problem is in that a person doesn't take time to keep reading when they find disturbing Scriptures. Most of the time, the answer is found within the chapter or chapters prior or following the disturbing line.

In this case, it was talking about the actions people continue to do, feeds a fire that God has set up to destroy wickedness and bad works. Who can dwell in continual burning? Nobody. We all will be forced to stop doing what is evil, and turn to what is good. In the meantime, we could have lost everything just like the Prodigal son, before recognizing that we need to turn back. Or like the one who built their house with straw, chaff and stone, suffering loss but saved as one through fire, as the Apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 3.

So don't be afraid to put up what scares you, or sounds fearful. A good answer will come! :D

Logged

Paul

In this case, it was talking about the actions people continue to do, feeds a fire that God has set up to destroy wickedness and bad works. Who can dwell in continual burning? Nobody. We all will be forced to stop doing what is evil, and turn to what is good.

In this case, it was talking about the actions people continue to do, feeds a fire that God has set up to destroy wickedness and bad works. Who can dwell in continual burning? Nobody. We all will be forced to stop doing what is evil, and turn to what is good.

It is just another mistranslation by English translators trying to justify a doctrine. If it meant 'glowings' or 'glow' or 'light' etc. it would have been the Hebrew word, "'owr" which means: light a) light of day, light of heavenly luminaries (moon, sun, stars), day-break, dawn, morning light, daylight, lightning, light of lamp, light of life, light of prosperity, light of instruction, light of face (fig.), etc.

Logged

jabcat

Since Mr. Knoch didn't believe in ET, you believe he was probably going a little too far with that particular translation? Might he have said "eonian burnings" or "eonian punishment" and been more accurate, i.e., acknowledging the "burning" but not eternal?

Since Mr. Knoch didn't believe in ET, you believe he was probably going a little too far with that particular translation? Might he have said "eonian burnings" or "eonian punishment" and been more accurate, i.e., acknowledging the "burning" but not eternal?

martincisneros

If it meant 'glowings' or 'glow' or 'light' etc. it would have been the Hebrew word, "'owr" which means: light a) light of day, light of heavenly luminaries (moon, sun, stars), day-break, dawn, morning light, daylight, lightning, light of lamp, light of life, light of prosperity, light of instruction, light of face (fig.), etc.

It would be interesting to see how the Concordant translation handles this particular Hebrew word "owr" because it's more than a doctrinal issue with the translation. It's the attempt at matching each Hebrew and Greek word with an exact English equivalent -- or a "close enough" that doesn't elsewhere need to be used for a different Hebrew word, if they've translated it with the same principles of translation that have gone into the N.T. If the O.T. is handled anything like the N.T., then each Hebrew word has been matched up with it's own English word which isn't used again for another word except for when you're over into the Greek New Testament. Their goals are a harmony of the translation and to follow precisely St. Paul's comment about maintaining a "pattern of sound words." A lot of people forget about, or have never learned that about the Concordant Translation. Or they don't see through that, that that doesn't necessarily mean that you'll acheive absolute precision if once a word's used, it's their goal not to have to use the same English word again except when they're absolutely forced to. It's a study Bible, not an attempt at a 100% precise translation. It's so you can follow the usage of Hebrew words throughout the O.T. and Greek words throughout the N.T. though obviously some of the lexicons might sincerely wish they'd pressed for more accuracy. It's a literary work of art without an equal, for sure. It's everything that people have been lied to with the claim that the KJV was all of that. None of the thousands of editions of the KJV since the 1611 publication date have tried near as hard. It's a work of art without an equal.

When studying the New Testament, I use both the CLNT and Scarlett's side by side. Both are available, or have been available in the past from the same Concordant Publishing. A lot of the scholarship in Winchester's Dialogues tends to flavor Scarlett's translation.

If I had a copy of the C.L.O.T. I'd be comparing it diligently with Rotherham's Emphasized Bible -- while at the same time realizing that the translations in question might not be based exactly on the same ancient manuscripts in question. The variations between translations are sometimes more than just translational and doctrinal philosophy, but are sometimes a matter of believing that a different Hebrew or Greek ancient variant manuscript might have more closely captured the meaning of a passage. It teeters on a doctrinal leap, which it often is, but sometimes it's a matter of what's the latest discovered, oldest manuscripts that have been found since the translation of another edition of the Bible. NRSV uses quite a few questionable manuscripts and translational principles. I only like the NRSV for the footnotes about additional ancient manuscript variant readings. "Other ancient manuscripts say in whole or in part..................." Often those are interesting.

As far as the passage in question, I personally believe that Isaiah chapters 32 through 34 should be read as one discourse. Read together you see an overwhelming redemptive passage, and at it's close you see an illustration of why "forever and ever" need not be "forever," but that in the Scriptures one entirely different "forever and ever" judgment can preceed an entirely different "forever and ever" judgment -- both of which were fulfilled ages ago.

Without having a copy of the Hebrew text from which the Concordant Publishing Concern has come up with their Old Testament, I can't say that they don't actually have this word, owr, in this passage under consideration that Craig has brought up as the actual Hebrew word for "glowing."

I guess I should have clarified that one of my points is that if the Concordant Translation is based upon older manuscripts than the Masoretic text of the Old Testament (which I'm not sure if it is, not having a copy of the translation of the O.T.), and if the New Testament is based upon older manuscripts than the Textus Receptus that the majority of the KJV is translated from (i.e. Masoretic and Textus Receptus), then e-sword and other similar software isn't going to be 100% reliable for anticipating what they were looking at when the Concordant Translation was being made. I don't believe that there's any major differences between the ancient manuscripts that are doctrinally related. The son of God IS NOT suddenly Joseph Smith because an older manuscript was used. The only begotten of the New Testament is still Jesus Christ, whichever ancient manuscripts are used. Redemption is still through faith in the Blood of Christ and His promises from Genesis to Revelation regarding the Universal Restoration, etc. I posted something longer about how minor the major differences are between the different manuscripts on the thread that Mickiel had recently started on "What is the Word of God?" Most of the differences aren't any bigger than the spelling of a name or a question about a number that might have been a manuscript copying error, such as 616 or 666 for Revelation 13. Very likely it's 666 because of how that number's used elsewhere in the Bible. It really is minor stuff and I don't want to create the impression that because of a difference between appeals to manuscript authority (i.e. one manuscript being prefered to another in some translations on certain passages in question) for a handful of word variations that the Written aspect of our faith is in any way in doubt or in peril. It's not. There's more proof for the veracity of what we have in our Bibles than there's statistical proof for the life of former U.S. President John F. Kennedy. That's something we can all rejoice in!

It is just another mistranslation by English translators trying to justify a doctrine. If it meant 'glowings' or 'glow' or 'light' etc. it would have been the Hebrew word, "'owr".

Anyone that wishes to answer, but I believe you spoke most directly to this, Craig.

Well there was more than one person in this thread. It is a mistranslation, it is the only 'bible' that translates it that way. It is done by the universalist Concordant, doesn't take a rocket scientist to put two and two together. They could not reconcile the word to fit their doctrine, so they changed the word definition.

Logged

martincisneros

It is a mistranslation, it is the only 'bible' that translates it that way. It is done by the universalist Concordant, doesn't take a rocket scientist to put two and two together. They could not reconcile the word to fit their doctrine, so they changed the word definition.

Within the very strict boundaries that they've imposed upon themselves of having as uniform of a translation as possible, I still have to say that they've done a remarkably good job. As I said, I haven't gotten to study their Old Testament yet, but as far as the New Testament goes, I'll probably never go back to the NKJV after having read it. If their O.T. turns out to have totally, completely, and hopelessly bombed in it's present edition, I'm sure there will be future editions and in the mean time I've still got access to Rotherham's, Young's, and the NASB for O.T. readings. Their O.T.'s probably not half as bad as a lot of the other translations of it, though.

I saw an odd rendering of YHVH in one of their old books one time that left me scratching my head, (thinking perhaps a Septuignt rendering into English,) but I've seen subsequent handlings of it in other writings that makes me think that either that's an isolated reference or two based on something that I'm not familiar with, whether a different manuscript or whatever, or that something contextually made them do something intriguing. Or, in the book that I was looking at a few years ago, I was just looking at a horrendous typo. It wouldn't be the first or the last book that would have had a funny typo if that was the case.

Within the very strict boundaries that they've imposed upon themselves of having as uniform of a translation as possible, I still have to say that they've done a remarkably good job.

Sure, I have a copy of their translation, and use it quite a bit. At the same time, 'glowings' is not a definition of "mowqed" and does not fit the context of the Isaiah chapter, which is easily understood. Unless, they are using the archaic usage of 'glowings',which after some research I found means: "to burn brightly without a flame" example: embers in a furnace (which are red hot) are referred to as 'glowings'. It means an inward burning, but no less friendly.

If you guys have not seen the movie "Nanny McPhee" I highly recommend it. It is all about judgment. And soo similar to what I have learned and am learning about God's judgments to us.

I won't bore you with the details but, in the movie there is a smart young man who is the instigator of most of the trouble these out of control children get in. His name is Simon. He and the other kids (6 or 7) have "faked" having the measles to keep from getting out of bed as Nanny as told them to do. So, Nanny gives them the measles for real. Then she come up with this great big bottle of nasty, brown, lumpy, medicine they have to take to get well. Well, tired of being sick, they decided to take the medicine. When it came Simon's turn to take it, he said to Nanny, "what if I refuse to take it?" She calmly said, "then, you won't get well, I'm sure of it."

This is sort of how I see the everlasting burnings....sort of like Craig explained it I guess. We must agree with God that we just can't pull this thing called life off all by ourselves.(confessing, bowing) We step out of judgment into obedience.

It is not endless burnings, how long does chaff and straw burn for? It burns for as long as there remains chaff and straw. Notice that a rebellious nation continues to give birth to straw and conceives chaff. Until this rebellious nation stops feeding the fire, they will by their own continual action, burn. Who can dwell with consuming fire? Who of us can dwell in everlasting burning? None. So they must make a choice, step out of the fire, stop feeding the fire, and do what is right. When they do what is right, they will recognize what arrogant people they once were, and they will recognize the obscure, strange, incomprehensible speech they once spoke believing it made sense at the time, but no longer. Just like everyone who comes from a doctrine of fear into the knowledge of the truth in love, they will be like night and day. The old has passed away and everything is made new.

If people stopped reading little by little and bit by bit, being snared up.

Hi Craig,

I disagree with the 'none' part. Isn't the person below dwelling in the aionion fire that he previously lit? Isn't he dwelling successfully in it? I think so, because he has recognized his sin, realized the judgment of God is good for him, he's relying and waiting on God for deliverance. He has attained to a righteous attitude towards the whole thing.

Lamentations 3:21 This I recall to my mind, therefore have I hope. 22 It is of the LORD'S mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not. 23 They are new every morning: great is thy faithfulness. 24 The LORD is my portion, saith my soul; therefore will I hope in him. 25 The LORD is good unto them that wait for him, to the soul that seeketh him. 26 It is good that a man should both hope and quietly wait for the salvation of the LORD. 27 It is good for a man that he bear the yoke in his youth. 28 He sitteth alone and keepeth silence, because he hath borne it upon him. 29 He putteth his mouth in the dust; if so be there may be hope. 30 He giveth [his] cheek to him that smiteth him: he is filled full with reproach. 31 For the Lord will not cast off for ever: 32 But though he cause grief, yet will he have compassion according to the multitude of his mercies.

The passage is does state who started the fire, but now who does the continual burning. There is none to blame but themselves for the fire that burns within them. The fire can only last as long as it is being fueled. None cannot successful dwell in continual burning, they will come to a point where they cannot bear it any longer.

"Who of us can dwell with the consuming fire? Who of us can dwell with everlasting burning?"

They are not successfully dwelling with consuming fire. They are not successfully dwelling with everlasting burning.

That is why: "The sinners in Zion are terrified; trembling grips the godless."

There continues to be a problem in UR circles, which continues to believe the fire is a good thing, something we should embrace, that the Fire is God Himself, and not the work He had begun in the lives of sinners who continue to sin.

There is no question that the work God started will end, and it ends in Jesus Christ. There is no question that if God causes suffering and grief, that He will repay with His loving kindness. There is no question that God does not reject forever, because in Christ all are reconciled to Him. Only those who do not know the secret of reconciliation seem to be blind to this fact.

Quote

I think so, because he has recognized his sin, realized the judgment of God is good for him, he's relying and waiting on God for deliveranc

I would not want to be the one saved as through fire and suffer loss. I would want to be the one who built on the Foundation godly things, and receive the reward of the Kingdom. This also is not based on self-preservation, it is based out of the knowledge of the truth. When the Truth has set you free, why go back into bondage?

« Last Edit: June 26, 2008, 02:24:12 AM by SOtW »

Logged

bobf

The passage is does state who started the fire, but now who does the continual burning. There is none to blame but themselves for the fire that burns within them. The fire can only last as long as it is being fueled. None cannot successful dwell in continual burning, they will come to a point where they cannot bear it any longer.

"Who of us can dwell with the consuming fire? Who of us can dwell with everlasting burning?"

They are not successfully dwelling with consuming fire. They are not successfully dwelling with everlasting burning.

That is why: "The sinners in Zion are terrified; trembling grips the godless."

Hi Craig,

I wan't saying that the "sinners" are successfully dwelling in the consuming fire - since that fire is designed to consume them, there is no way they can thwart it. But the person in Lamentations 3 does not appear to be feeding the flame anymore. It appears to have consumed him. So I wouldn't classify him as a "sinner" within the meaning of the Isaiah passage. At the same time, he's still waiting for deliverance from the destruction of that flame. He still seems to be coping with the same gloomy situation that he created, yet he has a new attitude of hope and reliance on God. Since he is still sitting within the destress that he created yet has hope and faith, that's why I said he seesm to be dwelling sucessfully within it.

Quote

There continues to be a problem in UR circles, which continues to believe the fire is a good thing, something we should embrace, that the Fire is God Himself, and not the work He had begun in the lives of sinners who continue to sin.

I think it's good in one sense ("It is good for a man to bear the yoke of his youth") but not in the sense that we should seek to enter that flame. It's only good in the sense that God is causing that flame, and it will succeed in it's purpose and benefit the sinner. But much better to just obey God in the first place.

I see two fires.1. Fire of judgment that snares and destroys the sinner.2. Fire that tries the righteous.

Psalms 11:5 The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth. 6 Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest: [this shall be] the portion of their cup.

In physical terms, both might look the same: Trouble, distress in our lives. But the purposes are different. The former traps & consumes and the latter proves.

Quote

I would not want to be the one saved as through fire and suffer loss. I would want to be the one who built on the Foundation godly things, and receive the reward of the Kingdom. This also is not based on self-preservation, it is based out of the knowledge of the truth. When the Truth has set you free, why go back into bondage?

I don't think those two are mutually exclusive. Can't a person who was feeding the flame, suffer loss, and then repent and then build on godly things? Haven't we all suffered loss in things we've done that we wish we hadn't done?

joyful1

This is a very interesting discussion!I have a question that relates to this....I hope you don't mind me asking it here?

I did a reading of Isaiah in light of UR/US and noted a "theme" for each chapter...everything seemed to make sense to me....until I came to the very last chapter of Isaiah. Maybe someone here can give me some insight as to what is being said in that last chapter?

Isaiah 66:24 (YLT)And they have gone forth, And looked on the carcases of the men Who are transgressing against me, For their worm dieth not, And their fire is not quenched, And they have been an abhorrence to all flesh!

joyful1

Well, that is my point, Paul. I THOUGHT that I did understand it!....my curiousity about this last verse in Isaiah comes from the word "carcases." What is happening in this verse, according to your understanding? It leaves me feeling like, the final outcome for the people mentioned here is anhilation? You have to understand. I may be coming from a totally different perspective on UR/US teaching than you, or say, another person here, so....I am trying to just "converse" here, and find out what you think about this verse. It's disturbing.Joyce :)

Logged

bobf

Well, that is my point, Paul. I THOUGHT that I did understand it!....my curiousity about this last verse in Isaiah comes from the word "carcases." What is happening in this verse, according to your understanding? It leaves me feeling like, the final outcome for the people mentioned here is anhilation? You have to understand. I may be coming from a totally different perspective on UR/US teaching than you, or say, another person here, so....I am trying to just "converse" here, and find out what you think about this verse. It's disturbing.Joyce :)

I see the 'carcases' as a symbol of the flesh, or our carnal old selves, that is a lothing or abhorrence to the New Man.

The carcases are of all who transgressed against the Lord, right? Who doesn't that include?

Each of these passages is about Israelites who transgressed against the Lord. So they would be included in 'all who transgressed Me' and so they would be included in the 'carcases' being looked at and abhorred. These passages all say that they will lothe their former wicked selves in their own sight.

Ezekiel 20:42 And ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I shall bring you into the land of Israel, into the country for the which I lifted up mine hand to give it to your fathers. 43 And there shall ye remember your ways, and all your doings, wherein ye have been defiled; and ye shall lothe yourselves in your own sight for all your evils that ye have committed. 44 And ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I have wrought with you for my name's sake, not according to your wicked ways, nor according to your corrupt doings, O ye house of Israel, saith the Lord GOD.

Ezekiel 6:9 And they that escape of you shall remember me among the nations whither they shall be carried captives, because I am broken with their whorish heart, which hath departed from me, and with their eyes, which go a whoring after their idols: and they shall lothe themselves for the evils which they have committed in all their abominations.

Ezekiel 36:31 Then shall ye remember your own evil ways, and your doings that were not good, and shall lothe yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and for your abominations.

So I believe Isaiah is saying that all flesh will worship the Lord, and look upon their own spiritual carcases of their former flesh-nature as a lothing and abhorring to their new self.

It is part of the WRATH of God that we look upon the "carcases" of SIN in our lives with LOATHING, for such "loathing" is an agreement and alignment with HIS view of it... and the CHRIST within is the catylyst of that "loathing" as He works from within each of us... by REVEALING Himself to us in every area of our lives...

I would like to comment on ETERNAL observation and WRATH which are very pertinent...

ETERNAL is not a "from now-on" proposition... it is a STATE in which all within it ALWAYS IS...

The observation of the domain of GOD (eternity), is to gain a perspective that is UNCHANGING...

If "hell" (non-existant place)... were ETERNAL, and anyone were to BE "in HELL" on an "ETERNAL" basis... it would mean that they ARE PERPETUALLY in HELL... having perpetually existed (without beginning or end) in this "condition".

The whole concept is ridiculous... for we ARE NOT in HELLnow... so that means that a portion of HELL's "ETERNITY" is compromised, by existence in THIS LIFETIME...

It also means that those "HELL-dwelling" ones, had no chance of ever being anything other than HELL-dwellers... for they have always (eternally) existed/exist/will exist in this condition.

Any observation of an ETERNAL state, must remove TIME... for TIME (Gen 1) "began" FROM Eternity, and shall "end" in it... (John 6:44)

TIME has a FIRST DAY and a LAST DAY...

Eternity has NO DAYS... it just ALWAYS IS...

(1) If ETERNITY has "DAYS", then Gen 1 is compromised, for the FIRST DAY of Gen 1, was not the "FIRST DAY"... because "days" in ETERNITY preceeded it...

(2) And the LAST DAY, spoken of by CHRIST is also compromised, for as ETERNITY is entered, and "DAYS" exist there, then the "LAST DAY" is not the "LAST DAY"...

There is no ETERNAL "glowings"... for this "glowing" represents WRATH... GOD's WRATH, is found to be amidst TIME, for it is noted to be a "MOMENT" (Ps 29:5) a "moment" is a measurement or quantity of TIME... (which is actually miniscule - an INSTANT...)

That WRATH is NOW... (Rom 1:18)For the WRATH of GOD, ...IS... revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness OF men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness...

His wrath IS, not was or will be, ...IS... revealed. The burnings are SPIRITUAL, and affect us NOW... in this... the LAKE of FIRE, in which we are amidst... where DEATH and HADES (world of the dead) have been cast and are active entities of HERE and NOW... They shall find their destruction, once TIME is complete (fullness of time), and are disbanded or neutralized entities as ALL who are DEAD in ADAM, re-arrive, in resurrection to LIFE, ...IN CHRIST...

pEace......willieH

Logged

joyful1

So-- the flesh is burned up, but the memory of the flesh is what Isaiah is talking about here--right? Very interesting-- thanks to bobf and willieH for giving your understanding on this! Does this help in explaining that annoyingly difficult verse:

Matthew 24:28For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.

?

Joyce :)

Logged

bobf

So-- the flesh is burned up, but the memory of the flesh is what Isaiah is talking about here--right? Very interesting-- thanks to bobf and willieH for giving your understanding on this! Does this help in explaining that annoyingly difficult verse:

Matthew 24:28For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.

?

Joyce :)

Yes, I also understand Matthew 24:28 in the same light, though I think the Isaiah 66 verse is looking back on what has already occurred, while the Matthew verse is looking forward to what will occur, kind of like this:

Isaiah 46:11 Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it. 12 Hearken unto me, ye stouthearted, that are far from righteousness: 13 I bring near my righteousness; it shall not be far off, and my salvation shall not tarry: and I will place salvation in Zion for Israel my glory.

For example, for the prodigal son, the ravenous bird was the judgment of God, his reaping of a pig-life that he had sown. The carcase was the carnal spirit in the prodigal son that loved riotous living and squandering of his inheritance.

I take Matthew 24 in it's entirety as using physical symbols to represent spiritual events in our lives. Not that I necessarily undertand all the symbols, wish I did.

IMO that's why Jesus said "this generation will not pass till all be fulfillled" because it was all fulfilled in that generation and continues be fulfilled in each generation in the lives of each person being coverted to Christ.

Example:

Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken.

Was fulfilled in believers leading up to the day of pentecost.

Acts 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; 17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: 18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: 19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: 20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: 21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

If you study all occurances of the phrase "The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood" you can get an idea of what's happening.

I believe it's about judgment on the house of God, not about AD 70 and all that. Vulture meet carcase.

« Last Edit: July 21, 2008, 09:43:55 PM by bobf »

Logged

joyful1

Wow...very good, bobf--so, for every generation, the sun (the light/understanding/truth) from God is darkened/hidden, the moon (church/reflecting the light of God) is turned to blood/not giving light anymore-- and the stars fall (leaders/prophets in the church also darkened/not giving "light upon the earth" any longer, as was their purpose in Genesis)...."the powers" being the ordained powers of God being shaken, so that whatever cannot be shaken is all that remains....interesting!

and then...if the Lord comes in your lifetime (comes into you) then the light/understanding/truth comes back...? Is this what you are saying?